Sanctioning Michigan

[johnlal]

I think it sets an important precedent that the 2 major parties are sanctioning Michigan for moving its primary election up to January. However, next time I would like to see sanctions used more fairly. Michigan was rightfully sanctioned. However, in so doing, New Hampshire and Iowa were given the preferential treatment it has enjoyed for far too long.

Here's what the parties should do. Set a date. All states vote on or after that date. No exceptions. No special treatment. Nobody gets more influence than anybody else. Fair is fair.

[RaleighNCDUer]

1. It's not the influence of the states I worry about, it's the influence of

monied candidates.

With a single day primary, those with the huge warchests will simply overwhelm less well funded candidates, and all that money will pour into the top 5 - 10 delegate heavy states, ignoring the small states. Anything BUT fair.

How about, all states with low delegate count on X day. Three weeks later, all states with medium delegate counts, on Y day. Then all state with highest delegate counts on Z day, three weeks after that. That way he big states could still overturn the numbers from the small states because they'd still control half the delegate total; meanwhile, the less funded candidates got their message out in the early primaries and those who survived got funding boosts from their survival, enough to continue to the next tier.

[johnlal]

2. But that's what they do.

The candidates with the huge war chests spend all their money in the delegate-heavy states anyway. So what's the difference?

[RaleighNCDUer]

3. The difference is, it disenfranchises the voters in all the smaller

states, AND it undercuts the ability of less well funded candidates to get their message out.

Therefore, the candidate will ALWAYS be a rich candidate, chosen by Texas, New York, California and Illinois.

That's not democracy.

[johnlal]

4. I don't understand your reasoning

But I trust you know more about it than I do.

It just seems to me that a less well funded candidate will be up against big money whether you do the elections at one time, or whether you do it in three tiers.

[RaleighNCDUer]

5. I may not be expressing myself well.

Say you have two candidates - one with 1mil and one with 10mil to spend.

Go to Iowa, and you've got what, 30 independent TV stations across the state. The lesser candidate can afford TV ads on all 30 stations. As can the wealthy candidate. The wealthy can buy MORE ads on those stations, as well as more print and doorhangers, etc., but everybody will be fully exposed to the poorer candidate as well.

Go to California and you've got 300 independent TV stations. The lesser candidate can afford ads in 40 of them, the wealthy one can afford all 300. The poorer candidate can print up 100,000 door hangers and pay for their distribution. The rich one can print 2,000,000 and distribute them.

In which state is the less funded candidate going to go unheard?

In IA, the wealthy candidate's advantage is minimized. The poorer candidate has a shot at winning, and winning can bring in enough further donations to boost competitiveness in the future contests. OTOH, if the poorer candidate is forced to compete in California first, the rich candidate can completely overwhelm him, and thus destroy any chance of competition in further contests.

This isn't like a game where everybody goes into it equally matched, and dependent upon skill alone. The money decides who plays.